I don't hang out here much 'cause I tend to get myself in trouble with

[flamin lib]

an excessively dry sense of humor. Usually it's just to cross post a reference to the Outdoor forum where I ask advice. Like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x2066

Saying all that, on the occasion I do spend time here I've noticed a few things that seem to be consistent about many of the dwellers here. Like the following . . .

Everything must be documented to the last iota unless it is a pro-gun-ownership comment, then anything goes. Of course if a comment is documented the first thing that happens is the source is discounted as hopelessly biased or itself without hard science.

Oft repeated questions, one in particular, are studiously avoided. The one I refer to is "if the guy who killed 10 people with a (fill in the non-gun blank) how many could he have killed with a gun?" Answers run from "it doesn't matter" to "it depends on his intent". C'mon, numbers do matter and 12 dead is a greater tragedy than 10 or 5 or 2.

Guns are just tools like any other tool. Anyone who wants to kill will find a way to do it. Now this and the above paragraph begs the question, "So if guns are no more lethal than anything else why did the Samurai, arguably the most proficient swordsmen in history, disappear with the advent of gunpowder?" It also begs the question, "If guns are just another tool and not more lethal that other weapons, why are they so essential to self defense?"

Now, I don't think these observations will change anything here. Like I said I don't hang out here much, just to refer to posts in that other forum that nobody reads; like this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x2066.

I'm not even sure I want to change anything here--it's doggone entertaining sometimes.

[TPaine7]

1. Some of your points have merit.

I readily concede that a person who kills X people with a gun or sword could probably have killed more with a semi-automatic rifle (a so-called assault weapon) or even a decent handgun.

However, guns are certainly not the most lethal weapon a terrorist or low level thug could use.

It also begs the question, "If guns are just another tool and not more lethal that other weapons, why are they so essential to self defense?

Bombs and arson can be much more deadly. Guns are more suited to self-defense than bombs or arson, not because they are more deadly, but because they are more surgical. In a self-defense scenario, you are not trying to take out an apartment building of sleeping victims, you are trying to stop one of a few specific individuals.

[TPaine7]

22. Duh... I meant "knife or sword" n/t

[shadowrider]

2. C'mon, numbers do matter and 12 dead is a greater tragedy than 10 or 5 or 2.

I respectfully disagree. 20 gangbangers that have a shootemup and 14 die is nowhere near as bad as 7 kindergarten children being mercilessly slaughtered. At least the bad guys had the ability to defend themselves. Those kids didn't. Innocent kids, their lives taken by a madman with a meat cleaver. THAT is FAR, FAR worse.

"It doesn't matter" means regardless how many, they're dead whether it's 3, 4, 10 or 500 and REGARDLESS the weapon. Does it matter if they were murdered with a gun, knife, crowbar or mustard gas? No, it doesn't. They are just as dead and it's absolutely horrible. Bad guys will find ways to kill, if guns were absent.

[flamin lib]

3. Hi again. Now that we're here and you've managed to take the

question entirely out of context, and let's not pretend my question wasn't sufficiently clear, I'll offer Sophie's choice again; 6 million innocents will die or 8 will die. Your choice to save one group, to stop one of the atrocities. Which one?

Please don't insult the forum with,"I don't deal in hypotheticals."

Herein lies the reason that it's so hard to answer the question, "If he used a gun instead of a meat cleaver, would the number of casualties be higher?" To answer in the only reasonable way is to admit that the whole argument that guns are just tools and they are no different than any other tool used in mayhem is fallacious.

Guns ARE different. From the invention of gunpowder to the rifled barrel and auto loading every advance in firearms was refining the purpose of putting more rounds downrange and on target to kill as many of the enemy as possible. That we can use them for other purposes doesn't change the fact that the primary purpose of guns is to cause death and injury and has been from the very beginning of gunsmithing. Yes, they are a tool and a pretty good one at that.

So, which of Sophie's choices would you take?

[xchrom]

4. +1 - weapons are not tools except 'enthusiasts' insist they are. Nt

[flamin lib]

6. Weellllll, yeah they are tools. Just like other tools they can do things

other than their primary function. A screwdriver can be used as a pry-bar. A gun can be used to put small holes very close together in a paper target far away and in doing so provide enjoyment to the shooter. A collection can preserve history and both amaze and amuse those who collect and view collections.

The problem is some people will go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting what the primary purpose of guns are: killing or injuring either people or game.

Self defense? Guns are good at that 'cause the kill and injure very efficiently. Oh, but umpty ump times the firearm is only used to intimidate a would be attacker. Sure, the reason it intimidates is because it's so damn good at killing and injuring.

[Euromutt]

42. That's odd; I have a rather different perception of what the problem is

The problem is some people will go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting what the primary purpose of guns are: killing or injuring either people or game.

Self defense? Guns are good at that 'cause the kill and injure very efficiently. Oh, but umpty ump times the firearm is only used to intimidate a would be attacker. Sure, the reason it intimidates is because it's so damn good at killing and injuring.

The actual problem with the "guns' only purpose is to kill" assertion (note: "only," not "primary") is that it relies on the implicit assertion that killing people is by definition morally wrong; ergo, a firearm serves no morally legitimate purpose.

When you acknowledge that firearms can be used in self-defense, you undercut the notion that killing is by definition morally wrong; when you acknowledge that it can be done by threat alone, you undercut the idea that killing is the only purpose of firearms. I acknowledge that that is not the wording you use; yours is a far more watered-down, and thus more reasonable, one. But that smells like a bait-and-switch to me: you use a wording different from the one that you're faulting others for disagreeing with. And that leads me to suspect that you don't actually agree with that other wording either.

So what's the point you're trying to make here, other than show off how clever you think you are?

[Callisto32]

49. A common problem is when people are unable to separate homicide from murder.

They are different, and people need to accept that.

[rrneck]

5. The real Sophie's choice

at the heart of the policy issue is how many people will have their civil rights unnecessarily curtailed or be left defenseless with no remedy from the state as a result of whatever firearms regulations are put into place.

[flamin lib]

7. I can recognize that. Now the issue is to get past the inflamitory

rhetoric and begin talking to each other like we all have some basic intelligence. In-artful dodges of legitimate questions and bumper sticker sloganeering only hardens both sides until every body is suffering from cranial rectal inversion.

[rrneck]

10. numbers do matter and 12 dead is a greater tragedy than 10 or 5 or 2.

Yeah, 12 is worse than 2. The question is how much worse. What unit of measure would we apply?

It's worse because it feels worse. It feels worse because it is a cluster of needless deaths all in one place, which makes the tragedy all the more poignant. But I don't think it's possible to design effective public policy to ameliorate poignancy.

[flamin lib]

12. The original question that generated the Sophie's choice is ofen

asked here: "If he used a gun instead of a (non gun), would there have been more casualties?"

No one seems to want to answer that question because to admit that a gun could/would have resulted in more casualties is to admit that guns are different than other weapons which opens the question of how different should the restrictions on them be.

This is, to some degree, a purely didactic exercise to create a degree of understanding of some of the forces at play in the discussion.

That and get some advice in the group that nobody reads . . .

[shadowrider]

13. I don't think it's a question that can be answered. The mind of a killer

is unique. Each instance is separate, distinct and determined by the killers mind and how many he/she kills before the desire is quenched. To guess "what if" is a useless exercise.

[rrneck]

16. I don't mind asking what if.

It's establishing public policy, writing laws, and putting people in jail based on "what if" that concerns me.

You're right about each instance being separate. In the end the actual enforcement of any law is done by the police, and they won't be there when it happens. I certainly don't see how we can regulate each and every possible weapon someone may bring with them.

On edit: If you put quotation marks in the subject line it dissappears on the "my posts" page.

[flamin lib]

17. Now see, we're back to non-answers.

Conjure up a lot of possibilities so as to ignore the elephant in the room. Obfuscate, ignore and pretend that omniscience is needed to answer a simple question.

Let me rephrase: "Is it possible to kill more people with a gun than with a baseball bat? If not why bother having a gun for self defense?"

[shadowrider]

20. Why would I want to have a baseball bat IF I'm physically threatened by someone with a gun?

What am I going to do, tell him to put it down, run to WalMart, get a bat, THEN come back?

I can't hide a bat. I can, and do, hide my gun.

[flamin lib]

24. Anybody know the catch and possession limit on red herring?

Why is is so hard to keep you on topic?

Get used to it, I'm not gonna' follow you when ya' chase after that little scarlet fish.

And frankly, it makes you look incredibly bad to be so obvioius.

[shadowrider]

27. And you're trying to paint situations in a black/white scenario that require a black/white answer

I don't believe it's that easy. Can you kill more with a gun than a bat? Probably. It's that pesky gray area, in my mind. Who are the victims, how old are they, are they confined, can anyone hear or see the carnage, how determined is the killer, and further, are the victims willing and/or able to fight back? It's the analyst in me. My job requires me to consider everything before any recommendations are made. I think that way in all other things too.

That's just me, but it appears to me your idea of a discussion is for people to agree with you and dissenting opinions aren't tolerated or are ridiculed. Case in point, "Anybody know the catch and possession limit on red herring?". I've not, that I'm aware of, mocked you in such a manner for your opinions. If I have, it was unintentional and I apologize.

Others may have definitive opinions on the subject, I won't be confined without considering all scenarios and (endless) possibilities.

[flamin lib]

29. You're seriously going to make the point that going up against any

conceivable group of targets that a baseball bat would be as effective as a gun? You really think you can make that fly?

Well bring it on and try to stay on topic instead of explaining why it isn't possible to stay on topic.

My idea of discussion is to have an exchange of ideas. That cannot happen if answers can't be made sense of.

So far all the black and white is Guns are great and I gotta' have mine and anybody that wants to actually talk about other aspects of ownership/responsibility/regulation can just try to follow my tortured reasoning.

C'mon,quit trying to wear me down with keeping you on topic. And please don't ask me to list every time a response didn't address the post it's directed to--anybody can read the thread and count for themselves.

[shadowrider]

31. Listen, you're equating one shot/one kill. It rarely works that way

Can I shoot more with a gun than beat with a bat? It depends on how much ammo I have. Does that mean I'd kill more? No.

You're trying to get me to admit a gun means more carnage in the hands of a determined shooter. (yes it does in sheer panic alone). More kills? Not necessarily. Again, it depends on the mindset and ability of the shooter, ammo supply and how quickly he/she is stopped.

[flamin lib]

34. I'm waiting for the scenario where a baseball bat against any

group of targets will result in more carnage.

Seems to me that after about five or six ya' might need take a break.

[shadowrider]

35. Elementary school, a group of disabled, elderly at bingo etc.

There are the scenarios (there are more) in which a bat can do significant damage equal to or greater than a gun (dependent upon ammo supply, determination and ability of the shooter, etc.) in terms of total deceased and wounded.

[flamin lib]

37. Oh gool lord. You go all the way to rest homes and elementary

schools as if there were no staff on hand and no 911 calls to be made.

And I thought you didn't deal in hypotheticals.

Given a two minute response time (what the average is here in the metroplex) or better yet, name your own response time and tell me again that some fool will forgo carrying enough ammo to do a better job with a baseball bat.

Man, ya' gotta' get a life outside RBKA.

Look, I've got a life outside DU and it's been real and it's been good. Too bad it hasn't been real good.

I'm gonna' tell ya' one last time that you really need to consider what kind of argument you're making then I'm off the make dinner.

[shadowrider]

43. They're called "soft targets". You know, ones in which the chances of being shot

while committing your heinous crime are minimal at best. You asked for a scenario. I give you three and you summarily dismiss them.

Seems you only want me to agree with you and any difference of opinion isn't tolerated or is mocked.

[EXneoCON]

55. Good Lord...

....I thought that this might be that rare topic where logic would prevail. Why is anyone even continuing to try and reason with the OP? More power to you, shadowrider, for the attempt.

Edited to reflect better judgement

[shadowrider]

56. I try and use logic/reason with someone who's operating on emotion

The two don't meet.

[rrneck]

14. Of course guns are different.

I think the difference only has relevance in the context of an almost unlimited number of other factors. In too small a nutshell, the difference is much greater to those who need them most. That is what a disparity of force is all about.

[flamin lib]

18. See reply 17. nt

[rrneck]

19. To answer that specific question

it is indeed possible to kill more people with a gun than with a baseball bat. But the question itself becomes nonsensical in its specificity. It's not an unworthy question to ask, but the circuitous nature of the firearms issue renders it moot.

It is also possible to more effectively defend oneself against a group of children armed with baseball bats using a gun.

And round and round we go.

edit for clarity

[flamin lib]

25. Well thanks for answering the obvious. Darned few people here in

the Gungeon can do that. Instead when asked that simple question the obfuscation begins usually ending in "if there were no guns people would use something else."

That in itself is an unprovable "hypothetical" because if SOME people use other methods it is not possible to know how many did not choose another and simply didn't commit mayhem.

The round and round part that being avoided is if the answer is as you've said, then guns rise above other possible alternatives and therefore the argument that "they'd just use something else" as if something else were just as devastating falls apart.

It make it more difficult to actually discuss the core issue if you can simply dismiss things you don't want to discus.

Not saying you, personally, do this but the editorial "you". It happens way too often and we both know it.

[rrneck]

39. The standard against which

you are measuring the weapon of choice is not the actual number of people killed, but the level of outrage associated with the act.

If killing ten people is worse than killing five, then it follows that five is better than ten, a proposition that flies in the face decency. One is too many, it's as simple as that. That's not to say that outrage is not called for when anyone dies under such circumstances, but it does nothing other than to provide the emotional impetus to find a solution. So when others say that the weapon makes no difference or that a spree killer would kill regardless of the weapon of choice, they are offering a rational response to an emotionally charged issue.

Here's a quick example:

Scenario 1. Spree killer armed with AR-15 vs. ten unarmed teenagers. He shoots all of them and they die. A massacre.

Scenario 2. One guy armed with an AR-15 vs. ten teenagers intent on beating him to a pulp, raping his girlfriend and robbing him. He shoots all of them and they die. Self defense.

In scenario one a great hue and cry goes up across the land among anti-gun liberals to ban assault weapons because of the horrible carnage. In scenario two a great hue and cry goes up across the land among Teabaggers to crack down on gangs and buy tons of guns because those kids are just no good. Both responses are knee jerk reactions to support a pet wedge issue and will do nothing for the survivors or any other potential victims.

The candidate that offers a program to actually help people instead of some pet theory and then follows through on it will get elected, retire in office, and be remembered for his or her great contribution to the republic.

[Katya Mullethov]

50. Or......... scenario THREE

No guns used as solution to feet either !

Fifteen white kids stomp the snot out of two old black or Hispanic dudes and it is recorded on VIDEO.Just imagine how the media would handle it:

It would be the lead top-of-the-hour news item on radio for days.

It would lead on the national evening TV news shows that night .

It would hit every local evening TV news show.

There would be plenty of televised protests by national race-baiters.

There would be coverage in the national radio and TV news of the arrest of the gang with the "perp walk" video shown 4x hourly on all news networks.

Daily updates of the trial.

Full coverage of the verdict and sentencing.

The victims would appear on Oprah and would option the rights to their story to Hollywood for several hundred thousand dollars.

Two or three weekly TV crime shows would make takeoffs of the event into an episode "based on real events". (Gag me with a fork.)

Spike Lee/Steven Spielberg would make it into a movie starring Morgan Freeman and Danny Glover. The critics would fall all over themselves in their praise of it.
//////


Excellent call on naming all those canards in this particular not exactly aforementioned thread . I would only have to add " Fight like a man , and get your head stomped on the curb . "

[shadowrider]

8. I don't know what I'd do

How out of context can I take your statement, "numbers do matter and 12 dead is a greater tragedy than 10 or 5 or 2."?

Which was worse, in your opinion, the death of those 7 or the tens of thousands of Kurds Saddam Hussein gassed to death? Unless you're willing to dismiss human value and go strictly on numbers, the thousands were worse, on that ONE criteria. All things considered, they're equal.

My point is they are equally horrendous, the numbers involved have nothing to do with whether one was worse than the other and I won't devalue human life by saying one was less horrible simply because there were fewer victims. When innocent children are involved though, I can't think of anything much more disgusting than that.

[flamin lib]

9. I'll accept that and credit you with the empathy you've shown.

But numbers do matter. The aftermath and emotional damage to those who remain behind is multiplied by the number of lives taken.

Me? No question. I'd save the six million.

Then I'd likely use one of my guns for it's primary purpose . . .

[shadowrider]

11. IMHO, numbers matter only if a lesser value is put on the lives of those

murdered, senselessly, in fewer numbers.

Your opinion differs, no harm, no foul.

[flamin lib]

15. Not to be a smart ass but to further illustrate why more is really worse than few.

If numbers don't matter, why get in a hurry to end a shooting spree? I understand that one is enough but once the one is murdered why do people so desperately try to intercede? What's the point in arming civilians for self protection if it doesn't matter if they stop a shooting spree before the police arrive? Surely it isn't simply a matter of self; to hide in a corner while mayhem is occurring all around.

If one is the same as 50 why not just wait until the police show up or until the shooter is out of ammunition and reduced to kicking and punching his victims?

These ethical dilemmas serve a purpose. They make us think about things. Sometimes they make us change the way we approach an issue.

So, when somebody asks, "Would there be more dead if a gun was used instead of a (non gun)?" it is a valid question and the answer effects how the rest of the discussion flows. To ignore it or dodge it so this part of the discussion doesn't take place is a disservice to both points of view.

Thanks for reading and considering the implications of one vs many.

[shadowrider]

21. People respond to stop further killing regardless the weapon used

One is not less important simply because of the weapon being used.

[flamin lib]

23. See, there ya' go again. Running off in a whole different direction.

The discussion is about more vs less. Instead of addressing my point ya' go runnin' off on the kind of weapon again.

This really is getting tedious.

How about this; re-read #15 and substitute (non gun) or (stabbing spree, hitting spree, or your choice) and THEN answer the questions about why not just wait until . . . .

[AtheistCrusader]

57. The answer would be potentially.

You can't really know unless you try.

Knifing someone is relatively easy, if you can get close, and getting close is just a matter of pitting speed against speed. So, a knife CAN be very devastating in an attack, where the same deranged lunatic might be more or less dangerous with a gun.

A gun is actually not terribly easy to kill with, if you aren't familiar with it. Each shot has muzzle rise, so follow-up shots move, and handguns aren't terribly accurate, without good marksmanship skill to back it up. There are some social pressures that can reduce accuracy (hollywood and video game gunfight portrayals becoming pop culture basic understanding of firearms use).

So I guess it depends on the dirtbag. If he's familiar with the use of a handgun, substituting a gun for a knife would be more devastating. If he or she is not familiar with the use of a handgun, that substitution might save lives. You can't really know.

I would rather be attacked by someone with a handgun that hasn't really used one before, than a person with a knife. We all know how to cut and stab, even if the understanding comes only from hacking at food on a plate, so pretty much everyone can be assumed to be familiar with the operation of a knife, regardless of their ability to knife-fight.

The opposite is also true, if the person is VERY familiar with the use of a handgun, I'd rather be attacked with a knife.

As to the other question, active resistance is the only proper response to an active shooter, every life you can save is a 'win'. Lives are important. I think the disagreement here is twofold: that a gun is always more devastating, and that the odd random shooter being devastating with a firearm in any way supports banning or restricting firearms with perfectly normal, legal uses.

[X_Digger]

26. The question is irrelevant if the determinant as to what stops the attack..

.. is not the weapon the offender wields, but is another factor (as it usually is.)

Many of the spree killings of the past end when the offender either encounters effective resistance (Appalachian Law School, Amish school shooting) or runs out of victims within easy reach (Virginia Tech, the latest Chinese school killing).

We don't have to resort to hypotheticals when we can actually look at real data.

[flamin lib]

28. I'm sorry but I can't reply becasue you don't offer enough data on

which question you are attempting to make irrelevant. There were several questions in the OP and I can't seem to make this particular response reasonably fit any of them.

Pleas elaborate.

[X_Digger]

32. ..The "what if he had used X implement.."

The implication that you wish to take as given, but I don't, being that choice of weapon correlates somehow to the number of people injured or killed.

I don't remember seeing anyone say that it's not possible given all other factors equal to kill more people with a firearm, just that the choice of a particular weapon is not the determining factor in how much carnage a particular killer will accomplish.

Of course a firearm is more efficient at killing or incapacitating than, say, a baseball bat. However, in the context of spree killings, we find examples where a killer was not stopped by running out of ammunition. Rather the two circumstances that we see again and again as being the cause of the end of a killer's rampage are meeting effective resistance, and running out of easily accessible victims.

[flamin lib]

36. Thanks for that answer.

Getting anyone in the Gungeon to admit that guns are more effective than most other means of death and destruction available; ie the bats, knives and such us like pulling teeth.

It's always about obfuscation. While railing against "hypotheticals" in the question a half dozen are fabricated in the answer.

I'll say again that it doesn't make the RKBA group look good. Rather it just makes the whole movement look like a bunch of idiots that can't reason past the front sight.

Ya' need to find a better way of addressing such things. So does the NRA. Fear and a air of superiority isn't working for ya'.

Right now it isn't an issue, but it ain't goin' away.

[X_Digger]

40. Not exactly..

You were only asking about guns v bludgeoning instruments (or that's the way I read the other responses.)

On a scale of tools used in spree killings, guns are in the middle. Gas cans and matches (Happy Land fire, Chengdu bus fire, 2009 Kuwait tent fire), improvised explosives (OKC, Bath school, 1980 Oktoberfest) or planes (SilkAir Flight 185, CNA Flight 6136) have been much more effective at raising the count of dead and injured.

[Euromutt]

30. You're begging the question

That is, in the logical fallacy sense (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html).

Oft repeated questions, one in particular, are studiously avoided. The one I refer to is "if the guy who killed 10 people with a (fill in the non-gun blank) how many could he have killed with a gun?" Answers run from "it doesn't matter" to "it depends on his intent". C'mon, numbers do matter and 12 dead is a greater tragedy than 10 or 5 or 2.

Yes, numbers do matter, but you're assuming that the death toll will inherently be higher if a firearm is used. The evidence does not bear this out.

In the first of these attacks (in Nanping), the attacker fatally knifed eight people. In the most recent one (Hanzhong), the attacker hacked nine people to death. By comparison, the attacker in the Stockton schoolyard shooting in 1989 (the shooting that formed the justification for California's Roberti-Roos Act banned so-called "assault weapons") killed five people (not counting himself). There were 13 dead (not counting the perpetrators) at Columbine, for an average of 6.5 dead per perpetrator. Westside Middle School (1998), five dead (2.5 per perpetrator). Red Lake Senior High School (2005), seven dead (at the school itself). West Nickel Mines School (2006), five dead. North Illinois University (2008), five dead. North Valley Jewish Community Center (1999), no dead (at the center itself). Seattle Jewish Federation shooting (2006), one dead. Trolley Square Mall (2007), five dead. Westroads Mall (2007), eight dead.

And while I acknowledge that there have been mass shootings that racked up much higher death tolls (University of Texas clock tower, Luby's, Virginia Tech), but my point is that the use of a firearm by no means means that the death toll will ipso facto be higher. The fact that nobody's willing to accept your false does not mean that the question is being "studiously avoided."

[flamin lib]

33. Well, thanks for that. I appreciate the thought and and the careful

reply. Just one little thing: "if the guy who killed 10 people with a (fill in the non-gun blank) how many COULD he have killed with a gun?" Well, two little things. From the link, "To 'beg' the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate."

The whole thing about this exercise is that so much time, energy and verbiage is expended dodging the questions asked that nobody ever actually hears what the issues are. That and trying to get some advice on the practical limits of barrel length which I can't post here.

The argument being made repeatedly is that if guns weren't available just as many deaths would occur by other means. Two things here: it's patently wrong and no one can know how many people with homicidal intent did not act on them because a gun was unavailable. We can only know how many did act without the use of a firearm.

The studious, obsitnate and obfuscating avoiding the answer to that question is to not cede ground to the opposition at any cost. Frankly it makes the RKBA side look unreasonable.

Ya' need a better tactic.

All that I still didn't get help in that other group . . .

[Euromutt]

45. Not giving the answer you want to hear isn't the same as "dodging the question"

It seems fairly obvious to me that you're angling for a very specific answer to you question, and that answer is "more." Sorry, but that's not the answer you're going to get; not because it's contrary to the pro-RKBA side's interests (though admittedly it is), but because the real answer is that nobody knows. The body count in mass murders depends on more than the choice of weapon alone, and the very nature of this kind of incident (not to mention scientific ethics) means nobody can try to replicate any given incident with all factors except the choice of weapons kept the same just to see what the outcome is.

<...> no one can know how many people with homicidal intent did not act on them because a gun was unavailable.

True; no one can know (please bear that in mind in the event you decide to respond to the point I make above). We can at best speculate on the basis of available evidence. We know, for example, that homicide rates in medieval western Europe, prior to the availability of firearms, were a multiple of present-day American homicide rates. While that doesn't prove that firearm availability doesn't make a difference, it does tell us that there are numerous other factors that influence the body count, probably significantly more so than the choice of weapons alone.

[flamin lib]

38. I've been at this way too long and my digital dyslexia is showing.

I've gotta go and fix dinner. 'Twas nice and I appreciate your answer but I'm done for now.

[aikoaiko]

41. I don't think I've ever seen your studiously avoided question in this forum....

...until now.

:shrug:

[shadowrider]

44. I believe

"studiously avoided", in this context, means "They don't agree with me so they're studiously avoiding the question".

I could turn around and say he/she is studiously avoiding the statement "People are dead, it matters not the weapon used", and "Because there were fewer victims in one crime compared to another, it's less important", a statement with which I disagree.

My opinion

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. That question/concern relies on a number of assumptions to be taken for granted.

1) Handguns are difficult to shoot. If you've never shot a handgun or are not well practiced then hitting a human sized target at 10+ yards is difficult. I doubt most beginners Could HIT the target 30%+ much less score effective vital shots. Rifles are bit easier but then again rifles rarely make up any contingency of crime and are not easily concealed. Remember, Cho's victims @ VT only incurred a ~56% mortality rate and this was a scenario where people were locked in the building by the assailant.

2) It varies depending on the study looked at... but pistol gunshot wounds are generally considered to have a 13%-20% mortality rate. That's right, you are about 4 times more likely to survive a random handgun wound than not. Pistols are good defensive weapons but generally considered lacking in terms of offensive weapons.

3) Knives are silent. When a gun is shot... EVERYONE hears it, identifies the origin, and likely runs and hides. With any proficiency or element of surprise, someone with a butcher knife could injure several people before anyone in the vicinity is even aware people are being assaulted.

4) Inside of 7 yards it is generally considered the lethal distance when facing an assailant with an edged weapon. Knives create terrible woulds that are long and deep. Often, more blood will be lost from a slashing knife wound and the probability that an artery is damaged is higher. Without immediate medical treatment, a large/deep knife wound can be more deadly than a GSW because of the likelihood of bleeding-out.

You see, there are simply too many factors to say, "They would have killed X many more/less people with a gun/knife." While firearms can be considerably more deadly, they require much more skill and have no element of surprise after the first shot is fired. I would have to say, for the general population, it's a toss up as to which is more deadly. For SKILLED assailents... I would imagine a very skilled person with a knife could kill more people.

[shadowrider]

47. Agreed

I doubt most beginners Could HIT the target 30%+ much less score effective vital shots.

Now consider that an intermediate shooter, randomly firing at moving targets, even from 20 feet, or 15 feet, and the 30% goes significantly downward, with shots hitting vital organs falling even further. (Although I'm not discounting a large percentage of "lucky" shots that do significant damage).

[Callisto32]

48. Point by point.

"Everything must be documented to the last iota unless it is a pro-gun-ownership comment, then anything goes. Of course if a comment is documented the first thing that happens is the source is discounted as hopelessly biased or itself without hard science."

Absolutely, the burden of proof should be on those who indicate that they wish to reduce liberty.

"Oft repeated questions, one in particular, are studiously avoided. The one I refer to is "if the guy who killed 10 people with a (fill in the non-gun blank) how many could he have killed with a gun?" Answers run from "it doesn't matter" to "it depends on his intent". C'mon, numbers do matter and 12 dead is a greater tragedy than 10 or 5 or 2. "

No, 1 person dead is not less of a tragedy than 15 dead, we are just far more likely to hear about it because it is less common and thus more "newsworthy."

"Guns are just tools like any other tool. Anyone who wants to kill will find a way to do it. Now this and the above paragraph begs the question, "So if guns are no more lethal than anything else why did the Samurai, arguably the most proficient swordsmen in history, disappear with the advent of gunpowder?" It also begs the question, "If guns are just another tool and not more lethal that other weapons, why are they so essential to self defense?" "

I don't think anybody (or at least very few) here thinks that firearms are not the pinnacle of "hurt living thing" technology. On the contrary, the argument is often that people have a right to the state of the art in self defense tools and techniques. Self defense can sometimes require taking the life of another.

As far as the samurai, I am glad that a tool came along that put a peasant with basic training at a similar level of lethality to a highly trained and thus expensive nobleman. Helped society move past that pesky little state of almost-chattel-slavery known as "feudalism."

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Samurai were outlawed.

The carry of swords in Japan was completely outlawed.

Tell me you were kidding when you thought it was the advent of the firearm that brought about the demise of the Samurai?

[GreenStormCloud]

52. How was that law enforced and who enforced it? How were the enforcers armed?

Not being sarcastic. Honestly asking because it would seem to me that to force the samurai to give up their swords one must have greater force than the samurai can muster. To me that means guys with guns. But I am open to learning if they were disarmed by other means.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. 1876 Sword Abolishment Act.

Prohibited open carry of weapons of all sorts. Enforced, literally by law enforcement. 'greater force' can be legal sanction, and just a bunch of guys with legal authorization to arrest you or kill you for resisting, armed with swords, guns or both.

Firearms were pretty primitive then, relatively speaking, but I imagine they were used by law enforcement. Not an automatic I Win button though. Japanese Military continued to use swords as well, through the 2nd World War. I would not consider them 'ceremonial'.

Even the modern bayonet is more or less a way to turn a rifle into something between a sword and a sharp poking stick.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Guns were introduced to Japan in 1542 or 1543.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Despite some initial problems, the Japanese rapidly improved firearms technology. They invented a device to make matchlocks fire in the rain (the Europeans never figured out how to do this), refined the matchlock trigger and spring, developed a serial firing technique, and increased the matchlock's calibre. They also dispensed with pre-battle introductions.<56> Superior quality guns were produced; during the 1904 Russo-Japanese war, 16th century matchlocks were converted to modern bolt-action and performed admirably.<57>

The Arabs, the Indians, and the Chinese had all acquired firearms long before the Japanese. But only the Japanese mastered large-scale domestic manufacture.<58>

By 1560, only 17 years after being introduced in Japan, firearms were being used effectively in large battles. That year, a bullet killed a general wearing full armour.<59> In 1567, Lord Takeda Harunobu declared, 'Hereafter, guns will be the most important arms'.<60> He was right. Less than three decades after Japan saw its first gun, there were more guns in Japan than any other nation on the planet. Several Japanese feudal lords had more guns than the whole British army.<61>(p.32)

It was Lord Oda Nobunaga, an early critic of the Portuguese matchlocks, whose army truly mastered the new firearms technology.<62> At Nagashino in 1575, 3,000 of Nobunaga's conscript peasants with muskets hid behind wooden posts and devastated the enemy's cavalry charge. There was no honour to such fighting, but it worked.<63> Feudal wars between armies of samurai knights had ravaged Japan for centuries. Nobunaga and his peasant army, equipped with matchlocks, conquered most of Japan, and helped bring the feudal wars to an end.<64>

Guns dramatically changed the nature of war. In earlier times, after the introductions, fighters would pair off, to go at each other in single combat--a method of fighting apt to let individual heroism shine. Armoured, highly trained samurai had the advantage. But with guns, the unskilled could be deployed en masse, and could destroy the armoured knights with ease.<65> Understandably, the noble bushi class thought firearms undignified. Even Lord Nobunaga personally refused to use guns and included samurai warriors in his armies. The warriors who became heroes were still those who used swords or spears.